CG: deliver proof of god existence please?
-
I am well aware that he is an extremist the other way and read his blog with that in mind, but consider it a good blog on balance. I think that "spitting in the face of" is an extreme way of phrasing it, but if the survivor really thinks that way, I think he should explain what it was about each of the other passengers which so offended God that he didn't consider them worthy of saving.
What makes you think God was more or less offended by them? Maybe they had done what God planned for them, but not the survivor. Maybe he was just slower than the rest. On a larger time line, all people die. The survivors are not saved, they just die later.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
How exactly is that extreme, it's pretty self centered to walk away from a pile of dead bodies and declare god wanted you to live. It's not god let me live, it's not god spared me, it's god wanted me to live. Humility, it's a wonderful tool in not tap dancing on other people, particularly their graves.
How us it extreme? It is extreme like pointing out every little flaw a person has is extreme. It is extreme as in 'bitter as can be', I'm not talking just about the guy surviving story, I mean read the first four or five stories. It's extreme like Jesus walks on water and he writes 'Jesus can't swim'. Does he report on World Vision helping in Haiti? Or did he report on the Christians trying to steal kids? Did he report on Mother Teresa, except to say she picks her nose? Is he bitching at any of the family members who say they wish the guy had died in place of their loved one? No, this is religious, let me find all that could be bad with it. Do you understand yet what I mean by extreme? As for the poor bastard who survived, you just crashed and everyone around you died, you tell me how rational are your words going to be as your battered brain tries to come to grips.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Would it matter to you if someone started applying pain to your person?
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
RichardM1 wrote:
Which translation are you talking about? Do you have personal reason to believe it is poorly translated, or are you taking on faith what someone else has said? Have you gone back the the most original manuscripts you have available and checked them against the 'poorly translated' version?
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
RichardM1 wrote:
Then you are not an atheist, you are an antichristian. I think if you look Islam has those same 'issues', given how much of it was taken from judeo-chritianity.
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him. The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
Then why do you bring it up?
harold aptroot wrote:
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
If you want better tools, you can go to crosswire.org/sword, and there are Hebrew version text of OT, as well as best Greek versions of NT, and tools that allow you to contrast and compare. The comparison of King James and the more original texts may come up hosed, but the point is not to defend King James, it is to get the best translation and the most understanding. Some of the newer ones are better translations, but some of them were done with an agenda - make it more gay friendly - make God seem more loving - show that women were in power. I'm not putting any of their agendas down, I just believe you translate it with as close to a blank slate as possible.
harold aptroot wrote:
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him.
I don't hear you bitch about them, but I guess I don't hear you say anything good about them either. If the discussion is only about God, I can't blame you for not complaining about Allah or Ba'al.
harold aptroot wrote:
The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
He does not human properties, He gave us some of His. It all depends on what you are willing to perceive, and I mean that in both directions, yours and mine. I believe one thing, and have biases based on it, you believe a different way and bias accordingly.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes, but me and my opinion are irrelevant as well.
Then why do you bring it up?
harold aptroot wrote:
The one from ancient Greek to English/other (so it was already translated before that). I know that, because I personally translated parts of it when I had Greek lessons at school, and the translations sometimes didn't match at all and sometimes the text was ambiguous. And that was the text used as the basis of most bibles.. comparing it with the oldest original can only be worse.
If you want better tools, you can go to crosswire.org/sword, and there are Hebrew version text of OT, as well as best Greek versions of NT, and tools that allow you to contrast and compare. The comparison of King James and the more original texts may come up hosed, but the point is not to defend King James, it is to get the best translation and the most understanding. Some of the newer ones are better translations, but some of them were done with an agenda - make it more gay friendly - make God seem more loving - show that women were in power. I'm not putting any of their agendas down, I just believe you translate it with as close to a blank slate as possible.
harold aptroot wrote:
Most gods have the same problem and I don't like any of them, but I won't claim to know about all of them. If there is a god without these issues I would be happy to be agnostic about him.
I don't hear you bitch about them, but I guess I don't hear you say anything good about them either. If the discussion is only about God, I can't blame you for not complaining about Allah or Ba'al.
harold aptroot wrote:
The "human like" properties of god in particular lead me to believe that he was made up by humans. Why else would he have human properties?
He does not human properties, He gave us some of His. It all depends on what you are willing to perceive, and I mean that in both directions, yours and mine. I believe one thing, and have biases based on it, you believe a different way and bias accordingly.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
We were asked to stop, though.
I did not see that, where was it? I try and be compliant on those kinds of things. And yeah, I pretty much argue till everyone else stops. :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Nor is the absence of God verifiable. So you should be an agnostic as well, and it is apparent that you are an atheist.
Of course it isn't, the whole issue is unresolvable that way, but the onus lies with the people who introduced the idea of a god, not with the people they're trying to convince. That is why it's relevant that god was not invented until "later". If he had been there from the beginning, the atheists would have to disprove his existence, and probably have a hard time. You may hide your god in higher dimensions, and give yet an other "we just don't understand it" argument (in your other post) but that just extends a long history of "hiding god". First he would be up in the sky, but people went to take a look and he wasn't there so he had to be somewhere else, etc, and now in higher dimensions that we can not see? Do you believe in the invisible pink unicorn? Stories about her are usually internally consistent as well as consistent with reality. I guess we'd have to be agnostic about her as well then.
-
What makes you think God was more or less offended by them? Maybe they had done what God planned for them, but not the survivor. Maybe he was just slower than the rest. On a larger time line, all people die. The survivors are not saved, they just die later.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe they had done what God planned for them
I could not live my live with such a fatalistic outlook as that. Are you saying that a baby who dies aged 2 days has "done what God planned for them"? If God existed and truly loved humans he would never put the parents through such a horrific experience, that would be the action of a being that hated humans.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe they had done what God planned for them
I could not live my live with such a fatalistic outlook as that. Are you saying that a baby who dies aged 2 days has "done what God planned for them"? If God existed and truly loved humans he would never put the parents through such a horrific experience, that would be the action of a being that hated humans.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Maybe they had done what God planned for them
I could not live my live with such a fatalistic outlook as that. Are you saying that a baby who dies aged 2 days has "done what God planned for them"? If God existed and truly loved humans he would never put the parents through such a horrific experience, that would be the action of a being that hated humans.
In that short a space of time, a baby has the chance to touch a parents life for ever. The memories and smells remain, long after all others fade - the wrinkles on feet so small that they should be smooth, hands that grasp instinctively. The sweet smell that can never be improved on. These are the joys and, while you never get over the pain, you treasure the moments you had - the love that wells up. A child, however briefly held, can elevate the most mundane of people up to levels of grace and this is something to be treasured.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I was told we were asked to kill this thread. I'm willing to keep discussing this with you, but I don't know an appropriate venue. [must ... control ... urge ... to ... get ... last ... word] :laugh:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I happily give you the last word! :beer:
-
I happily give you the last word! :beer:
-
In that short a space of time, a baby has the chance to touch a parents life for ever. The memories and smells remain, long after all others fade - the wrinkles on feet so small that they should be smooth, hands that grasp instinctively. The sweet smell that can never be improved on. These are the joys and, while you never get over the pain, you treasure the moments you had - the love that wells up. A child, however briefly held, can elevate the most mundane of people up to levels of grace and this is something to be treasured.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
I make some posts with all cynicism an attitude swept to one side.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Nice blocking move, but I'm just helping you with your simplistic argument. So, do you think the presence of evil means there is no good?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm just helping you with your simplistic argument
Yes, helping me reinforce it.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you think the presence of evil means there is no good?
Allowing thousands of innocent children to be killed by the Nazis is a sure sign that 'god' is a cunt (if he exists, and if he is, he isnt much of a god.),
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm just helping you with your simplistic argument
Yes, helping me reinforce it.
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you think the presence of evil means there is no good?
Allowing thousands of innocent children to be killed by the Nazis is a sure sign that 'god' is a cunt (if he exists, and if he is, he isnt much of a god.),
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you think the presence of evil means there is no good?
Allowing thousands of innocent children to be killed by the Nazis is a sure sign that 'god' is a c*** (if he exists, and if he is, he isnt much of a god.),
Well, now you are changing your very effective simplistic argument. But how you feel about God wasn't either your argument, or the question. I've asked twice, third times a charm? Your argument implies that evil in the universe means there can be no good. Do you believe your own simplistic argument that bad means there is no good?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
fat_boy wrote:
RichardM1 wrote:
So, do you think the presence of evil means there is no good?
Allowing thousands of innocent children to be killed by the Nazis is a sure sign that 'god' is a c*** (if he exists, and if he is, he isnt much of a god.),
Well, now you are changing your very effective simplistic argument. But how you feel about God wasn't either your argument, or the question. I've asked twice, third times a charm? Your argument implies that evil in the universe means there can be no good. Do you believe your own simplistic argument that bad means there is no good?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No, I havent changed it at all. The logic is simple. God, as a benevolent being does not exist. Some twisted bastard might though, but he's not a god. He's a twisted bastard. ANd by the way to finally answer your facile question, whch I had been hoping to avoid: "good and evil are not mutually exclusive".
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No, I havent changed it at all. The logic is simple. God, as a benevolent being does not exist. Some twisted bastard might though, but he's not a god. He's a twisted bastard. ANd by the way to finally answer your facile question, whch I had been hoping to avoid: "good and evil are not mutually exclusive".
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
No, I havent changed it at all. The logic is simple. God, as a benevolent being does not exist.
So,now we go from 'no god' to 'no benevolent god'. That is a change. You are OK with Christian God or Muslim Allah existing, since you have never accused them of being benevolent? The argument is more than simple, as you said,it is simplistic.
fat_boy wrote:
ANd by the way to finally answer your facile question, whch I had been hoping to avoid: "good and evil are not mutually exclusive".
So, the existence of freewill,and the capability to use it, which produces evil,means there can not be a benevolent god,even though it doesn't preclude good from existing?
Opacity, the new Transparency.